19 research outputs found
Flexible Self-Supporting Nanofibers Thin Films Showing Reversible Photochromic Fluorescence
Highly sensitive stimuli-responsive
fluorescent films play an important
role in smart sensors and readable optical devices. However, systems
involving light-driven fluorescence changes are still limited compared
with photochromic materials that simply change color upon photostimulation.
Herein, by incorporation of stilbene-based molecules into a polyÂ(vinyl
alcohol) host, we have developed new flexible self-supporting nanofiber
films that exhibited fast and obvious photochromic fluorescence (PCF).
The reversible transfer between two fluorescent states can be easily
recycled. Fluorescence microscopy and atomic force microscopy images
supplied in situ evidence of changes in fluorescence and surface morphology,
respectively. Density functional theoretical calculations showed that
the PCF can be attributed to photoisomerization of the stilbene-based
molecules. Therefore, based on the combination of experimental and
theoretical studies, this work not only supplies new stilbene-based
systems with light-induced fluorescence change, but also gives detailed
understanding on the photoisomerization and PCF processes of the nanofibers
systems. We anticipate that these PCF films can be applied in erasable
memory devices and antiforgery materials, and that our strategy may
be extended to other systems to fabricate multistimuli-responsive
fluorescent materials
Fast and Reversible Humidity-Responsive Luminescent Thin Films
Highly sensitive
stimuli-responsive fluorescent films are playing
an increasingly important role in the development of smart sensors
and erasable optical devices. However, systems involving humidity-responsive
fluorescence (HRF) are still very limited compared to those responsive
to other common environmental stimuli (e.g., light, heat, pressure,
or pH). Herein, by incorporating the 4-[4-(dimethylamino)Âstyryl]Âpyridine
chromophore into a polyvinylpyrrolidone host, we have developed new
flexible self-supporting nanofiber films that exhibit fast and obvious
HRF. The reversible transformation between two fluorescence states
can be easily observed and recycled at least 200 times. Fluorescence
microscopy images provided in situ evidence of changes in both fluorescence
and morphology. This work therefore offers an alternative to conventional
humidity sensors based on changes in color and electrical properties.
Furthermore, we anticipate that these HRF films can also be employed
as optical antiforgery materials
S1 Data -
BackgroundCurrent treatment recommendations for resectable or borderline pancreatic carcinoma support upfront surgery and adjuvant therapy. However, neoadjuvant therapy (NT) seems to increase prognosis of pancreatic carcinoma and come to everyone’s attention gradually. Randomized controlled trials offering comparison with the NT are lacking and optimal neoadjuvant treatment regimen still remains uncertain. This study aims to compare both treatment strategies for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.MethodsThe PRISMA checklist was used as a guide to systematically review relevant peer-reviewed literature reporting primary data analysis. We searched PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Datebase and related reviews for randomized controlled trials comparing neoadjuvant therapy with surgery first for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic carcinoma. We estimated relative hazard ratios (HRs) for median overall survival and ratios risks (RRs) for microscopically complete (R0) resection among different neoadjuvant regimens and major complications. We assessed the effects of neoadjuvant therapy on R0 resection rate and median overall survival with Bayesian analysis.ResultsThirteen eligible articles were included. Eight studies performed comparison neoadjuvant therapy with surgery first, and R0 resection rate was recorded in seven studies. Compared with surgery first, neoadjuvant therapy did increase the R0 resection rate (RR = 1.53, I2 = 0%, P2 = 15%), after Bayesian analysis it seemed that regimen with Cisplatin/ Epirubicin then Gemcitabine/ Capecitabine (PEXG) was most likely the best with a relatively small sample size. The rate of major surgical complications was available for six studies and ranged from 11% to 56% with neoadjuvant therapy and 11% to 45% with surgery first. There was no significant difference between neoadjuvant therapy and surgery first, also with a high heterogeneity (RR = 0.96, 95%CI = 0.65–1.43; P = 0.85; I2 = 46%).ConclusionIn conclusion neoadjuvant therapy might offer benefit over up-front surgery. Neoadjuvant therapy increased the R0 resection rate with gemcitabine + cisplatin + Radiotherapy that was the most favorable and improved mOS with Cisplatin/ Epirubicin then Gemcitabine/ Capecitabine (PEXG) that was most likely the best.</div
Forest plots of complication in patients with neoadjuvant therapy versus those surgery first.
There was no statistically significant difference observed between NT and US, despite a considerable level of heterogeneity.</p
Risk bias of summary.
Judgments about each risk of bias item for each included trials. Green indicates low risk of bias. Yellow indicates unclear risk of bias. Red indicates high risk of bias.</p
Risk bias of graph.
Each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all of the included trials, which indicated the proportion of different level risk of bias for each item.</p
The rank probability of R0 resection rate in patients with neoadjuvant therapy versus those surgery first.
The rankings of the nine competing neoadjuvant therapy regimens in terms of R0 resection were summarized. The analysis suggested that gemcitabine + cisplatin (Gem+Cis) + Radiotherapy had a higher likelihood of being the most favorable regimen. A: Surgery First; B: Gemcitabine + Cisplatin + Radiotherapy; C: Gemcitabine + Radiotherapy; D: Gem alone; E: Gemcitabine + Cisplatin then oral capecitabine; F: Gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel; G: Ooxaliplatin + irinotecan + 5-fluorouracily; H: Gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel + hydroxychloroquine; I: Oxaliplatin + leucovorin + irinotecan; J: gemcitabine + capecitabine.</p
Study characteristics.
BackgroundCurrent treatment recommendations for resectable or borderline pancreatic carcinoma support upfront surgery and adjuvant therapy. However, neoadjuvant therapy (NT) seems to increase prognosis of pancreatic carcinoma and come to everyone’s attention gradually. Randomized controlled trials offering comparison with the NT are lacking and optimal neoadjuvant treatment regimen still remains uncertain. This study aims to compare both treatment strategies for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.MethodsThe PRISMA checklist was used as a guide to systematically review relevant peer-reviewed literature reporting primary data analysis. We searched PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Datebase and related reviews for randomized controlled trials comparing neoadjuvant therapy with surgery first for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic carcinoma. We estimated relative hazard ratios (HRs) for median overall survival and ratios risks (RRs) for microscopically complete (R0) resection among different neoadjuvant regimens and major complications. We assessed the effects of neoadjuvant therapy on R0 resection rate and median overall survival with Bayesian analysis.ResultsThirteen eligible articles were included. Eight studies performed comparison neoadjuvant therapy with surgery first, and R0 resection rate was recorded in seven studies. Compared with surgery first, neoadjuvant therapy did increase the R0 resection rate (RR = 1.53, I2 = 0%, P2 = 15%), after Bayesian analysis it seemed that regimen with Cisplatin/ Epirubicin then Gemcitabine/ Capecitabine (PEXG) was most likely the best with a relatively small sample size. The rate of major surgical complications was available for six studies and ranged from 11% to 56% with neoadjuvant therapy and 11% to 45% with surgery first. There was no significant difference between neoadjuvant therapy and surgery first, also with a high heterogeneity (RR = 0.96, 95%CI = 0.65–1.43; P = 0.85; I2 = 46%).ConclusionIn conclusion neoadjuvant therapy might offer benefit over up-front surgery. Neoadjuvant therapy increased the R0 resection rate with gemcitabine + cisplatin + Radiotherapy that was the most favorable and improved mOS with Cisplatin/ Epirubicin then Gemcitabine/ Capecitabine (PEXG) that was most likely the best.</div
Rank of median overall survival.
BackgroundCurrent treatment recommendations for resectable or borderline pancreatic carcinoma support upfront surgery and adjuvant therapy. However, neoadjuvant therapy (NT) seems to increase prognosis of pancreatic carcinoma and come to everyone’s attention gradually. Randomized controlled trials offering comparison with the NT are lacking and optimal neoadjuvant treatment regimen still remains uncertain. This study aims to compare both treatment strategies for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.MethodsThe PRISMA checklist was used as a guide to systematically review relevant peer-reviewed literature reporting primary data analysis. We searched PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Datebase and related reviews for randomized controlled trials comparing neoadjuvant therapy with surgery first for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic carcinoma. We estimated relative hazard ratios (HRs) for median overall survival and ratios risks (RRs) for microscopically complete (R0) resection among different neoadjuvant regimens and major complications. We assessed the effects of neoadjuvant therapy on R0 resection rate and median overall survival with Bayesian analysis.ResultsThirteen eligible articles were included. Eight studies performed comparison neoadjuvant therapy with surgery first, and R0 resection rate was recorded in seven studies. Compared with surgery first, neoadjuvant therapy did increase the R0 resection rate (RR = 1.53, I2 = 0%, P2 = 15%), after Bayesian analysis it seemed that regimen with Cisplatin/ Epirubicin then Gemcitabine/ Capecitabine (PEXG) was most likely the best with a relatively small sample size. The rate of major surgical complications was available for six studies and ranged from 11% to 56% with neoadjuvant therapy and 11% to 45% with surgery first. There was no significant difference between neoadjuvant therapy and surgery first, also with a high heterogeneity (RR = 0.96, 95%CI = 0.65–1.43; P = 0.85; I2 = 46%).ConclusionIn conclusion neoadjuvant therapy might offer benefit over up-front surgery. Neoadjuvant therapy increased the R0 resection rate with gemcitabine + cisplatin + Radiotherapy that was the most favorable and improved mOS with Cisplatin/ Epirubicin then Gemcitabine/ Capecitabine (PEXG) that was most likely the best.</div
The rank of R0 resection rate.
BackgroundCurrent treatment recommendations for resectable or borderline pancreatic carcinoma support upfront surgery and adjuvant therapy. However, neoadjuvant therapy (NT) seems to increase prognosis of pancreatic carcinoma and come to everyone’s attention gradually. Randomized controlled trials offering comparison with the NT are lacking and optimal neoadjuvant treatment regimen still remains uncertain. This study aims to compare both treatment strategies for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.MethodsThe PRISMA checklist was used as a guide to systematically review relevant peer-reviewed literature reporting primary data analysis. We searched PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Datebase and related reviews for randomized controlled trials comparing neoadjuvant therapy with surgery first for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic carcinoma. We estimated relative hazard ratios (HRs) for median overall survival and ratios risks (RRs) for microscopically complete (R0) resection among different neoadjuvant regimens and major complications. We assessed the effects of neoadjuvant therapy on R0 resection rate and median overall survival with Bayesian analysis.ResultsThirteen eligible articles were included. Eight studies performed comparison neoadjuvant therapy with surgery first, and R0 resection rate was recorded in seven studies. Compared with surgery first, neoadjuvant therapy did increase the R0 resection rate (RR = 1.53, I2 = 0%, P2 = 15%), after Bayesian analysis it seemed that regimen with Cisplatin/ Epirubicin then Gemcitabine/ Capecitabine (PEXG) was most likely the best with a relatively small sample size. The rate of major surgical complications was available for six studies and ranged from 11% to 56% with neoadjuvant therapy and 11% to 45% with surgery first. There was no significant difference between neoadjuvant therapy and surgery first, also with a high heterogeneity (RR = 0.96, 95%CI = 0.65–1.43; P = 0.85; I2 = 46%).ConclusionIn conclusion neoadjuvant therapy might offer benefit over up-front surgery. Neoadjuvant therapy increased the R0 resection rate with gemcitabine + cisplatin + Radiotherapy that was the most favorable and improved mOS with Cisplatin/ Epirubicin then Gemcitabine/ Capecitabine (PEXG) that was most likely the best.</div